What are the appropriate criteria for assessing a theory of morality? In this enlightening work, Brad Hooker begins by answering this question. He then argues for a rule-consequentialist theory which, in part, asserts that acts should be assessed morally in terms of impartially justified rules. In the end, he considers the implications of rule-consequentialism for several current controversies in practical ethics, making this clearly written, engaging book the best overall statement of this approach to ethics.
For a decisive (in my view) objection to most standard versions of rule-consequentialism, Hooker's included, see Abelard Podgorski (2018), 'Wouldn't it be Nice? Moral Rules and Distant Worlds', Noûs 52(2): 279-94. [My own view is that consequentialists would do better to recognise a multiplicity of 'evaluative focal points' (as Kagan puts it), besides just acts and rules; but that's another story.]
Renowned philosopher Derek Parfit described this book as the "best statement and defence, so far, of one of the most important moral theories." The single review on amazon.com for this title also gave a positive endorsement that I found personally encouraging.